Frustrated Harry Reid: Reform the filibuster

An angry Harry Reid took to the floor Thursday and demanded changes to the Senate’s hallowed filibuster rules, siding with junior Democrats who have sought to substantially weaken the powerful delaying tactic.

It’s a risky move for the Senate majority leader, who could find himself in the minority in a matter of months and need the filibuster to block the GOP’s agenda. But Reid — who struck a “gentleman’s agreement” last year with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to preserve the filibuster from an effort by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Jeff. Merkley (D-Ore.) to water it down — signaled he is now on board with their effort given the gridlock in the Senate.

Text Size

-

+

reset

“If there were ever a time when Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley were prophetic, it’s tonight,” Reid said on the floor. “These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate, and we didn’t. They were right. The rest of us were wrong — or most of us, anyway. What a shame.”

Reid added: “If there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it’s the filibuster rules, because it’s been abused, abused, abused.”

Reid’s comments came after he tried to quickly pass a House-passed bill aimed at reauthorizing the Export-Import bank. Republicans objected, asking for votes on five of their amendments. Reid filed a cloture motion, setting up a test vote for Monday evening to begin debate on the measure.

It takes 60 votes — and time-consuming cloture motions — to overcome a filibuster, a tool that has been employed with growing frequency by both parties over the years.

Of course, changing the filibuster rules would be enormously difficult to accomplish, given that it takes two-thirds of senators to do so.

Udall and Merkley were calling for the rules to be changed through a circuitous process by 51 votes, a move they called the “constitutional option” but that critics dubbed the “nuclear option.”

Instead, Reid and McConnell agreed to a series of small rules changes and a general agreement to make the Senate more efficient without changing the filibuster.

The January 2011 handshake agreement didn’t last very long.

Last October, Reid employed the 51-vote maneuver to make a narrow change in Senate rules, a highly unusual move that enraged Republicans and could open the door to similar efforts in the future over the filibuster. Senior senators from both parties fear that changing the filibuster could allow the majority party to run roughshod over the minority and forever change the institution.

Reid is an idiot. In case he's missed it there has been several bills that got voted on that had a majority but not the 60 votes needed from the GOP lead House. The Keystone XL is a prime example. He could even find Yucca given a green light once the GOP takes over next year. nothing like a little radioactive waste in your back yard to say "How do you like me now".

The problem is not the filibuster but the loss of both party's skills on compromise. Of course that's a function of a weak president. A strong president would cut a deal with the opposition and then force his party to play ball and pass it. Obama has to beg his own party to even look at anything that's not red meat for the party base, not that Bush Jr. was much better.

Funny how before 2006 when the Democrats didn't control the congress ,one of their favorite tools was the filibuster and they considered it sacred, Now that the Republicans are using it to prevent the destruction of our economy and constitution it is suddenly something that needs to be changed. The Dems better watch out what they wish for,because after Nov. they might wish they still had it.

The problem is the high number of lobbyist and people like Grover Norquist that wield too much power over the Representatives and Senators. The President, or the Executive Branch, cannot force the Legislative Branch to do anything, whether you call him weak or not. The American voters have got to realize that our country was built on compromise. Any study of our history will show that anything that accomplished anything was via compromise. When that failed completely, we had a horrendous civil war. If we don't start electing people to go to Washington to compromise and work out our problems, we may be headed for another civil war, much bloodier than before, much more damaging than before because other countries in the world are stronger now and would take advantage of the opportunity to take over here.

Mitch McConnell has ruined the United States Senate and will go down in infamy as being as negative and destructive a force to that body as any in our entire history. He should be ashamed, but he appears to have no conscience. Kentucky did the nation a disservice by sending this horrible man to Congress.

Reid is a troll...and old and inept one at that. good grief. The senate hasnt passed a budget in 3 years. The dems control the senate and are all wet. They jsut need to lose another 5-6 seats this cycle just like last.

What do you know - the Democrats, the party in power, trying to make the Senate more functional and egalitarian - knowing they may well lose in a few months.

Apparently leadership is not dead amongst those on the left. Pity the right is in an era of zombie leadership - only allowing what they can remember of the Reagan years to occur (conveniently forgetting that Reagan raised taxes, grew government and tripled the debt.

Apparently leadership is not dead amongst those on the left. Pity the right is in an era of zombie leadership - only allowing what they can remember of the Reagan years to occur (conveniently forgetting that Reagan raised taxes, grew government and tripled the debt.

Apparently leadership is not dead amongst those on the left. Pity the right is in an era of zombie leadership - only allowing what they can remember of the Reagan years to occur (conveniently forgetting that Reagan raised taxes, grew government and tripled the debt.

Why weren't he and President Obama demanding this at the beginning of the administration, to give themselves the leverage to deal with the immense suffering of the American people? No, this is a cynical attempt to club the Republicans now that the Democrats' power is fading. If the Democrats were serious, they would have changed the rules two years ago when they controlled everything.

On the other hand, it would not be a bad idea for the Senate's new, radical Republicans to campaign to overturn just such privileges as the filibuster and special holds. Give the Senate back to the People. Let the majority rule and fight out the issues in the public square and at the ballot box, rather than in lobbyist-filled back rooms.

The problem is not the filibuster but the loss of both party's skills on compromise. Of course that's a function of a weak president. A strong president would cut a deal with the opposition and then force his party to play ball and pass it. Obama has to beg his own party to even look at anything that's not red meat for the party base, not that Bush Jr. was much better.

You're so right Dr_Al. We have been cursed with two of the worst presidents this country has ever had, consecutively.

The filibuster saves us from government excess (usually). Were it up to me, I would change the constitution to require a 60 percent vote on everything in Congress. I'd also require compact House districts and impose terms limits. Then, we may get a serious government.